Search

Importance: Osteosarcopenia is an emerging geriatric syndrome characterized by age-related deterioration in muscle and bone. Despite the established relevance of frailty and sarcopenia among older adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), osteosarcopenia has yet to be investigated in this setting., Objective: To determine the association between osteosarcopenia and adverse outcomes following TAVR., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc analysis of the Frailty in Aortic Valve Replacement (FRAILTY-AVR) prospective multicenter cohort study and McGill extension that enrolled patients aged 70 years or older undergoing TAVR from 2012 through 2022. FRAILTY-AVR was conducted at 14 centers in Canada, the United States, and France between 2012 and 2016, and patients at the McGill University-affiliated center in Montreal, Québec, Canada, were enrolled on an ongoing basis up to 2022., Exposure: Osteosarcopenia as measured on computed tomography (CT) scans prior to TAVR., Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinically indicated CT scans acquired prior to TAVR were analyzed to quantify psoas muscle area (PMA) and vertebral bone density (VBD). Osteosarcopenia was defined as a combination of low PMA and low VBD according to published cutoffs. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, hospital length of stay, disposition, and worsening disability. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders., Results: Of the 605 patients (271 [45%] female) in this study, 437 (72%) were octogenarian; the mean (SD) age was 82.6 (6.2) years. Mean (SD) PMA was 22.1 (4.5) cm2 in men and 15.4 (3.5) cm2 in women. Mean (SD) VBD was 104.8 (35.5) Hounsfield units (HU) in men and 98.8 (34.1) HU in women. Ninety-one patients (15%) met the criteria for osteosarcopenia and had higher rates of frailty, fractures, and malnutrition at baseline. One-year mortality was highest in patients with osteosarcopenia (29 patients [32%]) followed by those with low PMA alone (18 patients [14%]), low VBD alone (16 patients [11%]), and normal bone and muscle status (21 patients [9%]) (P < .001). Osteosarcopenia, but not low VBD or PMA alone, was independently associated with 1-year mortality (odds ratio [OR], 3.18; 95% CI, 1.54-6.57) and 1-year worsening disability (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.19-3.74). The association persisted in sensitivity analyses adjusting for the Essential Frailty Toolset, Clinical Frailty Scale, and geriatric conditions such as malnutrition and disability., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that osteosarcopenia detected using clinical CT scans could be used to identify frail patients with a 3-fold increase in 1-year mortality following TAVR. This opportunistic method for osteosarcopenia assessment could be used to improve risk prediction, support decision-making, and trigger rehabilitation interventions in older adults.

The identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are of major importance, but the lack of standardised definitions is challenging for trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Valve Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (VARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organisations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from Europe, the USA, and Asia, with a major focus on TAVI-related bleeding. VARC-HBR is an initiative of the CERC (Cardiovascular European Research Center), aiming to develop a consensus definition of TAVI patients at HBR, based on a systematic review of the available evidence, to provide consistency for future clinical trials, clinical decision-making, and regulatory review. This document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of HBR evaluating the safety and effectiveness of procedures, devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing TAVI..

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic adversely affected health care systems. Patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are especially susceptible to treatment delays., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global TAVR activity., Methods: This international registry reported monthly TAVR case volume in participating institutions prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2018 to December 2021). Hospital-level information on public vs private, urban vs rural, and TAVR volume was collected, as was country-level information on socioeconomic status, COVID-19 incidence, and governmental public health responses., Results: We included 130 centers from 61 countries, including 65,980 TAVR procedures. The first and second pandemic waves were associated with a significant reduction of 15% (P < 0.001) and 7% (P < 0.001) in monthly TAVR case volume, respectively, compared with the prepandemic period. The third pandemic wave was not associated with reduced TAVR activity. A greater reduction in TAVR activity was observed in Africa (-52%; P = 0.001), Central-South America (-33%; P < 0.001), and Asia (-29%; P < 0.001). Private hospitals (P = 0.005), urban areas (P = 0.011), low-volume centers (P = 0.002), countries with lower development (P < 0.001) and economic status (P < 0.001), higher COVID-19 incidence (P < 0.001), and more stringent public health restrictions (P < 0.001) experienced a greater reduction in TAVR activity., Conclusions: TAVR procedural volume declined substantially during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Africa, Central-South America, and Asia. National socioeconomic status, COVID-19 incidence, and public health responses were associated with treatment delays. This information should inform public health policy in case of future global health crises., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Lefèvre has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences; and received minor fees from Boston Scientific, Terumo, and Abbott. Dr Pilgrim has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution without personal remuneration from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and ATSens; and speaker fees and consultancy fees to the institution from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Biosensors, and Highlife. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Teleflex; and advisory board fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Inari, JenaValve, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Siemens, Pie Medical, and Teleflex. Dr Swaans has served as a proctor/lecturer for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Bioventrix Inc, Cardiac Dimensions, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare, Medtronic, and Philips Healthcare. Dr Prendergast has received speaker/consultancy fees from Medtronic, MicroPort, Anteris, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Resar has received institutional research funding from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott; and served as a TAVR proctor for Medtronic. Dr Chen has served as a consultant for Venus MedTech. Dr Hildick-Smith has received research funds and speaker fees from Medtronic. Dr Spence has received TAVR proctoring and consultancy fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Bunc has served as a proctor for Abbott, Meril, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Molnár has served as a consultant for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr Toggweiler has served as a consultant and proctor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Biosensors; has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular; has served as a consultant for Medira, Shockwave, Teleflex, atHeart Medical, Cardiac Dimensions, and Polares Medical; has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific, Fumedica, and Novartis; has received speaker honoraria from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, ReCor Medical, and Daiichi Sankyo; and holds equity in Hi-D Imaging. Dr Ojeda has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences; and speaker fees from Philips and Word Medica. Dr Toutouzas has served as a proctor for Medtronic, Abbott, Myval, and Boston Scientific. Dr AlMerri has served as a TAVR proctor for Medtronic. Dr Noble has served as a proctor for Medtronic; and received institutional grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and Medtronic. Dr Kala has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific; served on the Speakers Bureau for Edwards Lifesciences, Servier, and AstraZeneca; and received research support from Novartis. Dr Kurt has served as a TAVR proctor for Abbott. Dr Yin has served as a TAVR proctor for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. Dr Sztejfman has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, and MicroPort. Dr Mendiz has served as a proctor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Gunasekaran has received fees from Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr Kao has served as a proctor for Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Dager has served as a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Ferrero-Guadagnoli has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Modine has served as a consultant for and received honorarium from Abbott, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hayashida has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific, and served as a consultant for Cordis and Medtronic. Dr Mylotte has received institutional grant funding from Boston Scientific and Medtronic; and personal fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and MicroPort. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite the high procedural success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), 2 out of 5 older adults report poor physical performance and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in the ensuing months, particularly those with frailty. There has yet to be a trial examining the synergistic effects of exercise and protein supplementation to counteract frailty and improve patient-centred outcomes following TAVR. The PERFORM-TAVR trial is a multicentre parallel-group randomised clinical trial that is enrolling 200 frail older adults ≥ 70 years of age undergoing TAVR. Patients will be randomly allocated to 1 of 2 treatment groups: standard-of-care lifestyle education (control group) or protein-rich oral nutritional supplement for 4 weeks before TAVR with the addition of home-based supervised exercise sessions for 12 weeks after TAVR (intervention group). The primary outcome will be physical performance as measured by a blinded observer using the Short Physical Performance Battery at 3 months. Secondary outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months will include HRQOL, as measured by the Short-Form 36 Physical and Mental Component summary scores, and a composite safety end point. The PERFORM-TAVR trial is testing a novel frailty intervention in older adults undergoing TAVR to optimise recovery and downstream HRQOL. This represents a potential paradigm shift that highlights the value of assessing and treating patients' frailty in parallel with their underlying heart valve disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03522454., (Copyright © 2023 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data concerning the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in type 0 bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce. The study aims to compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for AS in patients with type 0 bicuspid, type 1 bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valve anatomy., Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe AS between 2012 and 2022 in this single-center retrospective cohort study. The primary outcome was mortality, while secondary outcomes included in-hospital complications such as stroke and pacemaker implantation and transcatheter heart valve hemodynamic performance., Results: The number of patients with AS with type 0 bicuspid, type 1 bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valve anatomy was 328, 302, and 642, respectively. Self-expanding transcatheter heart valves were used in the majority of patients (n=1160; 91.4%). In the matched population, differences in mortality (30 days: 4.2% versus 1.7% versus 1.7%, P overall =0.522; 1 year: 10% versus 2.3% versus 6.2%, P overall =0.099) and all stroke (30 days: 1.0% versus 0.9% versus 0.0%, P overall =0.765; 1 year: 1.4% versus 1.6% versus 1.3%, P overall =NS) were nonsignificant, and the incidence of overall in-hospital complications was comparable among groups. Ascending aortic diameter was the single predictor of 1-year mortality in type 0 bicuspid patients (hazard ratio, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.03-2.44]; P =0.035). The proportion of patients with a mean residual gradient ≥20 mm Hg was the highest in those with type 0 bicuspid anatomy, although the need for permanent pacemaker implantation was the lowest in this group., Conclusions: Major clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for AS in patients with type 0 bicuspid, type 1 bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valve anatomy are equivalent at short- and mid-term follow-up. These observations merit further exploration in prospective international registries and randomized controlled trials., Competing Interests: Disclosures M. Chen and Dr Feng are proctors/consultants of Venus MedTech, MicroPort, and Peijia Medical. Dr Mylotte is a proctor and consultant for Medtronic and Microport and a consultant for Boston Scientific. Dr Piazza is a consultant and proctor for Medtronic and Peijia Medical. Dr Prendergast has received institutional educational and research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and speaker/consultancy fees from Abbott, Anteris, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Microport. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: Prospective data about transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) patients are limited., Aims: We aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of the Evolut PRO and R (34 mm) self-expanding prostheses in BAV patients and explore the impact of different computed tomography (CT) sizing algorithms in a prospective registry., Methods: A total of 149 bicuspid patients were treated in 14 countries. The primary endpoint was the intended valve performance at 30 days. Secondary endpoints were 30-day and 1-year mortality, severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and the ellipticity index at 30 days. All study endpoints were adjudicated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria., Results: The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 2.6% (1.7-4.2). Type I L-R BAV was observed in 72.5% of the patients. Evolut valve sizes 29 and 34 mm were utilised in 49.0% and 36.9% of the cases, respectively. The 30-day cardiac death rate was 2.6%; the 1-year cardiac death rate was 11.0%. Valve performance at 30 days was observed in 142/149 (95.3%) patients. The mean aortic valve area post-TAVI was 2.1 (1.8-2.6) cm 2 , and the mean aortic gradient was 7.2 (5.4-9.5) mmHg. No patient had more than moderate aortic regurgitation at 30 days. PPM was observed in 13/143 (9.1%) surviving patients and was severe in 2 patients (1.6%). Valve function was maintained at 1 year. The mean ellipticity index remained 1.3 (interquartile range 1.2-1.4). Overall, 30-day and 1-year clinical and echocardiography outcomes were similar between the two sizing strategies., Conclusions: BIVOLUTX demonstrated a favourable bioprosthetic valve performance and good clinical outcomes after TAVI with the Evolut platform in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis. No impact from the sizing methodology could be identified.

Indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have expanded in many countries to include patients with aortic stenosis who are at low surgical risk, and a similar expansion to this cohort is anticipated elsewhere in the world, together with an increase in the proportion of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology as the age of the patients being treated decreases. To date, patients with BAV have been excluded from major randomized trials of TAVI owing to anatomical considerations. As a consequence, BAV has been a relative contraindication to the use of TAVI in international guidelines. Although clinical experience and observational data are accumulating, BAV presents numerous anatomical challenges for successful TAVI, despite advances in device design. Furthermore, in those with BAV, substantial geographical variation exists in patient characteristics, clinical approach and procedural strategy. Therefore, in this Roadmap article, we summarize the existing evidence and provide consensus recommendations from an international group of experts on the application of TAVI in patients with BAV in advance of the anticipated growth in the use of this procedure in this challenging cohort of patients., (© 2022. Springer Nature Limited.)

Most transcatheter aortic valve replacement-related procedures (eg, transcatheter aortic valve replacement implantation depth, commissural alignment, coronary access, bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction, paravalvular leak closure) require an optimal fluoroscopic viewing angle located somewhere along the aortic annulus S-curve. Chamber views, coronary cusp and coronary anatomy, can be understood along the aortic annulus S-curve. A better understanding of the optimal fluoroscopic viewing angles along the S-curve may translate into increased operator confidence and improved safety and efficacy while reducing procedural time, radiation dose, contrast volume, and complication rates., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Success rate of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in aortic regurgitation (AR) patients is relatively low on account of the absence of calcified anchoring structures. Morphological classification and corresponding TAVR strategies for AR are lacking yet., Methods: The AURORA study is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm cohort study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transfemoral TAVR for severe AR in patients with high or prohibitive risk for surgery. Patients who are ≥ 65 years and diagnosed with severe pure AR as defined by the Echocardiographic Core Laboratory will be consecutively enrolled for further multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scanning and multiplanar analyses. Based on a new anatomical classification and dual anchoring theory, patients will be classified into 4 types according to the level of the anchoring area. Types 1, 2 and 3 (at least 2 anchoring areas) will undergo the TAVR procedure with a domestic Chinese self-expanding valve (VitaFlow Valve, MicroPort, Shanghai, China), whereas type 4 (0 or 1 anchoring area) patients will be considered unsuitable for TAVR and will receive medical treatment. Our goal is to recruit 100 patients to account for 10% missing data or loss of patients to follow-up. Procedural, 30-day, 6-month and 12-month outcomes will be assessed according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria., Discussion: The AURORA study will establish a new AR anatomical classification based on dual anchoring theory through MDCT multiplanar measurement and assess the safety and efficacy of TAVR guided by this new classification and strategy in AR patients., Trial Registration: This Study was registered at Chinses Clinical Trial Registry. The registration number: ChiCTR2200055415; The date of registration: 9, January 2022; The URL of the registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=141209 ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: As transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement is increasingly used in patients with longer life expectancy, a sizable proportion will require redo TAV replacement (TAVR). The unique configuration of balloon-expandable TAV (bTAV) vs a self-expanding TAV (sTAV) potentially affects TAV-in-TAV outcome., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to better inform prosthesis selection, TAV-in-TAV outcomes were assessed according to the type of initial and subsequent TAV., Methods: Patients from the Redo-TAVR registry were analyzed using propensity weighting according to their initial valve type (bTAV [n = 115] vs sTAV [n = 106]) and subsequent valve type (bTAV [n = 130] vs sTAV [n = 91])., Results: Patients with failed bTAVs presented later (vs sTAV) (4.9 ± 2.1 years vs 3.7 ± 2.3 years; P < 0.001), with smaller effective orifice area (1.0 ± 0.7 cm 2 vs 1.3 ± 0.8 cm 2 ; P = 0.018) and less frequent dominant regurgitation (16.2% vs 47.3%; P < 0.001). Mortality at 30 days was 2.3% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 0% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.499) and 1.7% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 1.0% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.612); procedural safety was 72.6% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 71.2% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.817) and 73.2% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 76.5% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.590). Device success was similar according to initial valve type but higher with subsequent sTAV vs bTAV (77.2% vs 64.3%; P = 0.045), primarily because of lower residual gradients (10.3 mm Hg [8.9-11.7 mm Hg] vs 15.2 mm Hg [13.2-17.1 mm Hg]; P < 0.001). Residual regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar after bTAV-in-TAV and sTAV-in-TAV (5.7%) and nominally higher after TAV-in-bTAV (9.1%) vs TAV-in-sTAV (4.4%) (P = 0.176)., Conclusions: In selected patients, no association was observed between TAV type and redo TAVR safety or mortality, yet subsequent sTAV was associated with higher device success because of lower redo gradients. These findings are preliminary, and more data are needed to guide valve choice for redo TAVR., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr Kim is a proctor for and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Abdel-Wahab has received speaker honoraria and/or consultancy fees to the hospital on his behalf from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; and is an advisory board member for Biotronik. Dr Søndergaard has received consulting fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. Dr Redwood is a proctor for and has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hamm is an advisory board member for Medtronic. Dr Sinning has received speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Schofer has received speaker fees and travel compensation from Boston Scientific; and has received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott/St. Jude Medical. Dr Andreas is a proctor, consultant, and speaker for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Medtronic; and has received institutional grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and LSI. Dr Guerrero has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Castriota is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Nazif is a consultant for or has received honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotrace, and Baylis Medical; and is a consultant for and holds equity in Venus Medtech. Dr Pilgrim has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific and Biotronik. Dr Babaliaros is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences; and holds equity in Transmural Systems. Dr Van Mieghem has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, and PulseCath; and has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Latib has received institutional research and grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received personal consulting honoraria from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Hildick-Smith is a proctor and adviser for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has developed rapidly in China. As TAVI progresses towards low surgical risk patients, the total number of TAVI procedures will grow exponentially. There is a need to develop a domestic TAVI device designed for Chinese patients., Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a self-expanding valve (TaurusOne transcatheter aortic valve system) in the treatment of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in China., Methods: A prospective, multicentre, single-arm study was designed to enrol 120 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI using the TaurusOne valve. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at one year., Results: From September 2017 to April 2019, 120 patients were enrolled (35% bicuspid aortic valve, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons [STS] score 9.95%). One-year mortality in 120 patients (follow-up rate, 100%), was 6.7% (upper 95% confidence interval: 12.9%), which was significantly lower than the performance goal of 30% (p<0.0001). All stroke, myocardial infarction, paravalvular leak ≥moderate, and new pacemaker implantation occurred in 4.4%, 1.8%, 0.8%, and 22.1% of patients, respectively, at one year. The haemodynamic results and quality of life scores also improved significantly. Patients with a bicuspid valve had similar outcomes to those with a tricuspid aortic valve., Conclusions: The one-year clinical results confirm the safety and efficacy of the TaurusOne transcatheter aortic valve system in the treatment of patients with symptomatic severe tricuspid and bicuspid aortic stenosis.

Background: There are limited data on the association of membranous septum (MS) morphology and transcatheter heart valve (THV) implantation depth, and the development of new conduction abnormalities (CA) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Aims: The aim of this study was to describe the morphology of the MS and predict the risk of new CA after TAVI based on the MS morphology and THV implantation depth., Methods: Based on preprocedural CT scans, the MS depth was measured for every 25% of the entire MS width in 272 TAVI patients without preprocedural bundle branch block (BBB) or pacemaker. Post-procedural CT scans for THV implantation depth assessment were available in 130 of these patients., Results: The MS depth was a median of 2.5 mm (IQR 1.4-3.8) deeper at the posterior edge when compared to the anterior edge of the MS. New CA developed in 7.1% of patients in whom the THV did not cross the lower MS border at its anterior edge (3.6% with new BBB and high degree CA, respectively), in 18.8% of patients (15.6% with new BBB and 3.1% with new high-degree CA) where the THV overlapped the lower MS border by <2.5 mm and in 47.1% of patients (24.3% with new BBB and 22.9% with new high-degree CA) with THV overlap of the lower MS border by ≥2.5 mm., Conclusions: The difference of the MS depth and THV implantation depth measured at the anterior edge of the MS predicted new CA after TAVI.

Objectives: We sought to document aortic cusps fluoroscopic projections and their distributions using leaflet alignment which is a novel concept to optimize visualization of leaflets and for guiding BASILICA (bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent coronary artery obstruction) and determine whether these projections were feasible in catheter laboratory., Background: Optimal fluoroscopic projections of aortic valve cusps have not been well described., Methods: A total of 128 pre-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (pre-TAVR) computed tomographies (CT) (72 native valves and 56 bioprosthetic surgical valves) were analyzed. Using CT software (3Mensio, Pie medical imaging, the Netherlands), leaflet alignment was performed and the feasibility of these angles, which were defined as rate of obtainable with efforts (within LAO/RAO of 85° and CRA/CAU of 50°) were evaluated., Results: High feasibility was seen in right coronary cusp (RCC) front view (100%) and left coronary cusp (LCC) side view (99.2%), followed by noncoronary cusp side view (95.3%). In contrast, low feasibility of RCC side view (7.8%) and LCC front view (47.6%) was observed. No statistical differences were seen between the distribution of native valves and bioprosthetic surgical valves. With patient/table tilt of 20°LAO and 10°CRA, the feasibility of RCC side view and LCC front view increased to 43.7 and 85.2%, respectively., Conclusion: Distributions of each cusp's leaflet alignment follows "sigmoid curve" which can provide better understanding of aortic valve cusp orientation in TAVR and BASILICA. RCC side view used in right cusp BASILICA is commonly unachievable in catheter laboratory and may improve with patient/table tilt., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the concordance between transcatheter aortic valve implantation angles generated by the "double S-curve" and "cusp-overlap" techniques., Background: The "double S-curve" and "cusp-overlap" methods aim to define optimal fluoroscopic projections for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expandable device., Methods: The study included 100 consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with self-expanding device planned by multidetector computed tomography. TAVR was performed using the double S-curve model, as a view in which both the aortic valve annulus and delivery catheter planes are displayed perpendicularly on fluoroscopy. Optimal projection according to the cusp-overlap technique was retrospectively generated by overlapping the right and left cups on the multidetector computed tomography annular plane. The angular difference between methods was assessed in spherical 3 dimensions and on the left and right anterior oblique (RAO) and cranial and caudal (CAU) axes., Results: The double S-curve and cusp-overlap methods provided views located in the same quadrant, mostly the RAO and CAU, in 92% of patients with a median 3-dimensional angular difference of 10.0° (interquartile range: 5.5° to 17.9°). The 3-dimensional deviation between the average angulation obtained by each method was not statistically significant (1.49°; p = 0.349). No significant differences in average coordinates were noted between the double S-curve and cusp-overlap methods (RAO: 14.7 ± 15.2 vs. 12.9 ± 12.5; p = 0.36; and CAU: 27.0 ± 9.4 vs. 26.9 ± 10.4; p = 0.90). TAVR using the double S-curve was associated with 98% device success, low complication rate, and absence of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak., Conclusions: The double S-curve and cusp-overlap methods provide comparable TAVR projections, mostly RAO and CAU. TAVR using the double S-curve model is associated with a high rate of device success and low rate of procedural complications., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Gada has served as a consultant for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Piazza has served as a consultant for Medtronic, HighLife, and MicroPort. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are now both used to treat aortic stenosis in patients in whom life expectancy may exceed valve durability. The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative safety and efficacy of potential subsequent interventions., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare TAVR in failed transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) versus surgical aortic valves (SAVs)., Methods: Data were collected on 434 TAV-in-TAV and 624 TAV-in-SAV consecutive procedures performed at centers participating in the Redo-TAVR international registry. Propensity score matching was applied, and 330 matched (165:165) patients were analyzed. Principal endpoints were procedural success, procedural safety, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year., Results: For TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV, procedural success was observed in 120 (72.7%) versus 103 (62.4%) patients (p = 0.045), driven by a numerically lower frequency of residual high valve gradient (p = 0.095), ectopic valve deployment (p = 0.081), coronary obstruction (p = 0.091), and conversion to open heart surgery (p = 0.082). Procedural safety was achieved in 116 (70.3%) versus 119 (72.1%) patients (p = 0.715). Mortality at 30 days was 5 (3%) after TAV-in-TAV and 7 (4.4%) after TAV-in-SAV (p = 0.570). At 1 year, mortality was 12 (11.9%) and 10 (10.2%), respectively (p = 0.633). Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 ± 0.5 cm 2 vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm 2 ; p = 0.040), and the mean residual gradient was lower (12.6 ± 5.2 mm Hg vs. 14.9 ± 5.2 mm Hg; p = 0.011) after TAV-in-TAV. The rate of moderate or greater residual aortic regurgitation was similar, but mild aortic regurgitation was more frequent after TAV-in-TAV (p = 0.003)., Conclusions: In propensity score-matched cohorts of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV patients, TAV-in-TAV was associated with higher procedural success and similar procedural safety or mortality., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and ViVitro Labs. Dr. Kim has received proctor or speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards; and is an Advisory Board member for Biotronik. Dr. Sondergaard has received consultant fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. Dr. Redwood is a proctor for and has received lecture fees from Edwards. Dr. Hamm is an Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr. Sinning has received speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Wood is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schofer has received speaker fees and travel compensation from Boston Scientific; and has received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott/St. Jude Medical. Dr. Leipsic is a consultant to Circle CVI and Edwards Lifesciences; and provides institutional core laboratory services to Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Neovasc. Dr. Andreas is a proctor for Edwards and Abbott; and is an Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr. Guerrero has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Castriota is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kodali has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular and JenaValve; has received personal fees from Meril Lifesciences; has received personal fees from and holds equity in Admedus; and holds equity in Supira, Microinterventional Devices, Dura Biotech, and Thubrikar Aortic Valve. Dr. Conradi is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Neovasc, and JenaValve. Dr. Nazif has received consulting fees or honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotrace, and Baylis Medical; and has received consulting fees from and holds equity in Venus Medtech. Dr. Pilgrim has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific and Biotronik. Dr. Babaliaros is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences; and holds equity in Transmural Systems. Dr. Van Mieghem has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi-Sankyo, and PulseCath; and has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Latib has received institutional research or grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received personal consulting honoraria from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Hildick-Smith is a proctor and adviser to Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe baseline characteristics, and periprocedural and mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter mitral valve interventions post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and examine their clinical benefit., Background: The optimal management of residual mitral regurgitation (MR) post-TAVR is challenging., Methods: This was an international registry of 23 TAVR centers., Results: In total, 106 of 24,178 patients (0.43%) underwent mitral interventions post-TAVR (100 staged, 6 concomitant), most commonly percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (PMVR). The median interval post-TAVR was 164 days. Mean age was 79.5 ± 7.2 years, MR was >moderate in 97.2%, technical success was 99.1%, and 30-day device success rate was 88.7%. There were 18 periprocedural complications (16.9%) including 4 deaths. During a median follow-up of 464 days, the cumulative risk for 3-year mortality was 29.0%. MR grade and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improved dramatically; at 1 year, MR was moderate or less in 90.9% of patients (mild or less in 69.1%), and 85.9% of patients were in NYHA functional class I/II. Staged PMVR was associated with lower mortality versus medical treatment (57.5% vs. 30.8%) in a propensity-matched cohort (n = 156), but this was not statistically significant (hazard ratio: 1.75; p = 0.05)., Conclusions: For patients who continue to have significant MR, remain symptomatic post-TAVR, and are anatomically suitable for transcatheter interventions, these interventions are feasible, safe, and associated with significant improvement in MR grade and NYHA functional class. These results apply mainly to PMVR. A staged PMVR strategy was associated with markedly lower mortality, but this was not statistically significant. (Transcatheter Treatment for Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Disease. The Aortic+Mitral TRAnsCatheter Valve Registry [AMTRAC]; NCT04031274)., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Barbanti has received consultant fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. De Backer has received research grants and consultant fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sievert has received institutional honoraria, travel expenses, and consulting fees from 4tech Cardio, Abbott, Ablative Solutions, Ancora Heart, Append Medical, Bavaria Medizin Technologie GmbH, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Carag, CardiacDimensions, Cardimed, Celonova, Comed B.V., Contego, CVRx, Dinova, Edwards Lifesciences, Endologix, Hemoteq, Hangzhou Nuomao Medtech, Holistick Medical, Lifetech, Maquet Getinge Group, Medtronic, Mokita, Occlutech, Recor, RenalGuard, Terumo, Vascular Dynamics, Vectorious Medtech, Venus, Venock, and Vivasure Medical. Dr. Grasso has been a proctor for Abbott Vascular. Dr. Andreas has been a proctor for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received advisory board fees from Medtronic. Dr. Guerrero has received research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and advisory fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Eccentricity of coronary ostial positions in relation to the aortic valve cusp may influence the target laceration location in BASILICA (Bioprosthetic or native Aortic Scallop Intentional Laceration to prevent Coronary Artery obstruction). Eccentricity of the coronary ostia in relation to coronary cusps of native and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was not well described before., Methods: A total of 121 pre-TAVR patients' CT data (72 native valves TAVR and 49 bioprosthetic surgical valves TAVR) was included and coronary ostial eccentricity angles were measured and compared. Coronary ostial angles were measured between mid-cusp line to coronary ostium in CT perpendicular images., Results: In the overall cohort, the right coronary artery (RCA) had an eccentric origin in the majority of cases, favoring the commissure between the right and the non coronary cusp (17.0°, IQR; 10-25). On the other hand, the left coronary artery (LCA) originated most commonly near center of the cusp position (0°, IQR; -8 -7.5) In comparison of native and bioprosthetic valves, RCA ostial angles were more eccentric in native valves (19.0°, IQR; 12-26) than in bioprosthetic valves (14.0°, IQR; 3-20) (p = 0.004). Whereas, LCA ostial angle has no significant differences between native valves (-2.0°, IQR;-7.75-5.75) and bioprosthetic valves (1°, IQR;-8-13), (p = 0.6)., Conclusion: RCA ostia often have an eccentric origin towards the non-coronary cusp, especially in native aortic valves, while LCA ostia commonly originate near the center of the cusp. This finding may contribute to better performance of BASILICA procedures., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr HC Wijeysundera received research funding from Medtronic Inc and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr.JM McCabe is a consultant to Edwards LifeSciences, Boston Scientific. Dr N Piazza is a consultant and proctor for Medtronic and Microport. D Dvir, is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Gore, Jena, Abbott. All other authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose with regard to any part of the data or results in this report., (Copyright © 2020 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few studies have measured frailty as a potential reason for foregoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in older adults with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This study sought to determine the impact of frailty and other clinician-cited reasons on restricted mean survival time (RMST)., Methods: An analysis of the McGill Frailty Registry was conducted between 2014 and 2018 at the McGill University Health Center Structural Valve Clinic. Consecutive nonsurgical patients referred for TAVR were included. In those that underwent balloon aortic valvuloplasty or medical management, the primary clinician-cited reason for foregoing TAVR was codified. Vital status was ascertained at 1 year and analysed using RMST and Kaplan-Meier analyses., Results: The study consisted of 373 patients with a mean age of 82.4 years, of which 233 underwent TAVR and 140 did not. Patients who did not undergo TAVR were more likely to be nonagenarians, with left ventricular dysfunction, chronic kidney disease, dementia, disability, depression, malnutrition, and frailty. The primary clinician-cited reason was: comorbidity in 34%, frailty in 23%, procedural feasibility and risks in 16%, and mild or unrelated symptoms in 27%. Compared to the TAVR group, 1-year RMST was reduced by 2.0 months in the medical management group (95% CI 1.2, 2.7) and by 1.1 months in the valvuloplasty group (95% CI -0.2, 2.5)., Conclusions: Patients with severe AS referred for TAVR may never undergo the procedure on the basis of comorbidity, frailty, procedural issues, and symptoms. The best treatment decision is one that follows from multi-disciplinary assessment encompassing frailty.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess acute regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement, comparing different implanted transcatheter heart valves., Background: Regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement influences all-cause mortality. Thus far, no quantitative comparison of regurgitation among multiple commercially available transcatheter heart valves has been performed., Methods: Aortograms from a multicenter cohort of consecutive 3,976 transcatheter aortic valve replacements were evaluated in this pooled analysis. A total of 2,258 (58.3%) were considered analyzable by an independent academic core laboratory using video densitometry. Results of quantitative regurgitation are shown as percentages. The valves evaluated were the ACURATE (n = 115), Centera (n = 11), CoreValve (n = 532), Direct Flow Medical (n = 21), Evolut PRO (n = 95), Evolut R (n = 295), Inovare (n = 4), Lotus (n = 546), Lotus Edge (n = 3), SAPIEN XT (n = 239), and SAPIEN 3 (n = 397). For the main analysis, only valves with more than 50 procedures (7 types) were used., Results: The Lotus valve had the lowest mean regurgitation (3.5 ± 4.4%), followed by Evolut PRO (7.4 ± 6.5%), SAPIEN 3 (7.6 ± 7.1%), Evolut R (7.9 ± 7.4%), SAPIEN XT (8.8 ± 7.5%), ACURATE (9.6 ± 9.2%) and CoreValve (13.7 ± 10.7%) (analysis of variance p < 0.001). The only valves that statistically differed from all their counterparts were Lotus (as the lowest regurgitation) and CoreValve (the highest). The proportion of patients presenting with moderate or severe regurgitation followed the same ranking order: Lotus (2.2%), Evolut PRO (5.3%), SAPIEN 3 (8.3%), Evolut R (8.8%), SAPIEN XT (10.9%), ACURATE (11.3%), and CoreValve (30.1%) (chi-square p < 0.001)., Conclusions: In this pooled analysis stemming from daily clinical practice, the Lotus valve was shown to have the best immediate sealing. This analysis reflects the objective evaluation of regurgitation by an academic core laboratory (nonsponsored) in a real-world cohort of patients using a quantitative technique., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There has been an exponential increase in the demand for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Our goal was to examine trends in TAVR capacity and wait-times across Canada., Methods: All TAVR cases were identified from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2017. Wait-time was defined as the duration in days from the initial referral to the TAVR procedure. TAVR capacity was defined as the number of TAVR procedures per million population/province/fiscal year. We performed multivariable multilevel Cox proportional hazards modelling of the time to TAVR as the dependant variable and the effect of provinces as random effects. We quantified the variation in wait-times among provinces using the median hazard ratio., Results: We identified a total of 4906 TAVR procedures across 9 provinces. Despite a year over year increase in overall capacity, there was a greater than 3-fold difference in capacity between provinces. Crude median wait-times increased over time in all provinces, with marked variation from 71.5 days in Newfoundland to 190.5 and 203 days in Manitoba and Alberta, respectively. This suggests increasing demand outpaced the growth in capacity. We found a median hazard ratio of 1.62, indicating that in half of the possible pairwise comparisons, the time to TAVR for identical patients was at least 62% longer between different provinces., Conclusion: We found substantial geographic inequity in TAVR access. This calls for policy makers, clinicians, and administrators across Canada to address this inequity through revaluation of provincial funding mechanisms, as well as implementation of efficient care pathways., (Copyright © 2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the value of frailty to predict in-hospital major bleeding and determine its impact on mid-term mortality following transcatheter (TAVR) or surgical (SAVR) aortic valve replacement., Background: Bleeding complications are harbingers of mortality and major morbidity in patients undergoing TAVR or SAVR. Despite the high prevalence of frailty in this population, little is known about its effects on bleeding risk., Methods: A post hoc analysis was performed of the multinational FRAILTY-AVR (Frailty Aortic Valve Replacement) cohort study, which prospectively enrolled older adults ≥70 years of age undergoing TAVR or SAVR. Trained researchers assessed frailty using a questionnaire and physical performance battery pre-procedure and ascertained clinical data from the electronic health record. The primary endpoint was major or life-threatening bleeding during the index hospitalization, and the secondary endpoint was units of packed red blood cells transfused., Results: The cohort consisted of 1,195 patients with a mean age of 81.3 ± 6.0 years. The incidence of life-threatening bleeding, major bleeding with a clinically apparent source, and major bleeding without a clinically apparent source was, respectively, 3%, 6%, and 9% in the TAVR group and 8%, 10%, and 31% in the SAVR group. Frailty measured using the Essential Frailty Toolset was an independent predictor of major bleeding and packed red blood cell transfusions in both groups. Major bleeding was associated with a 3-fold increase in 1-year mortality following TAVR (odds ratio: 3.40; 95% confidence interval: 2.22 to 5.21) and SAVR (odds ratio: 2.79; 95% confidence interval: 1.25 to 6.21)., Conclusions: Frailty is associated with post-procedural major bleeding in older adults undergoing TAVR and SAVR, which is in turn associated with a higher risk for mid-term mortality., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in patients with longer life expectancy, yet robust data on the durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are limited. Redo-TAVR may play a key strategy in treating patients in whom THVs fail., Objectives: The authors sought to examine outcomes following redo-TAVR., Methods: The Redo-TAVR registry collected data on consecutive patients who underwent redo-TAVR at 37 centers. Patients were classified as probable TAVR failure or probable THV failure if they presented within or beyond 1 year of their index TAVR, respectively., Results: Among 63,876 TAVR procedures, 212 consecutive redo-TAVR procedures were identified (0.33%): 74 within and 138 beyond 1 year of the initial procedure. For these 2 groups, TAVR-to-redo-TAVR time was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years. The indication for redo-TAVR was THV stenosis in 12 (16.2%) and 51 (37.0%) (p = 0.002) and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 62 (83.8%) and 86 (62.3%) (p = 0.028), respectively. Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 180 patients (85.1%); most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%). At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg; valve area 1.63 ± 0.61 cm 2 and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm 2 ; and regurgitation ≤mild in 91% and 91%, respectively. Peri-procedural complication rates were low (3 stroke [1.4%], 7 valve malposition [3.3%], 2 coronary obstruction [0.9%], 20 new permanent pacemaker [9.6%], no mortality), and symptomatic improvement was substantial. Survival at 30 days was 94.6% and 98.5% (p = 0.101) and 83.6% and 88.3% (p = 0.335) at 1 year for patients presenting with early and late valve dysfunction, respectively., Conclusions: Redo-TAVR is a relatively safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR. These results are important for applicability of TAVR in patients with long life expectancy in whom THV durability may be a concern., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the standard of care in a large population of patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. The sizing of TAVR devices is done from ECG-gated CT angiographic image volumes. The most crucial step of the analysis is the determination of the aortic valve annular plane. In this paper, we present a fully tridimensional recursive multiresolution convolutional neural network (CNN) to infer the location and orientation of the aortic valve annular plane., Methods: We manually labeled 1007 ECG-gated CT volumes from 94 patients with severe degenerative aortic valve stenosis. The algorithm was implemented and trained using the TensorFlow framework (Google LLC, USA). We performed K-fold cross-validation with K = 9 groups such that CT volumes from a given patient are assigned to only one group., Results: We achieved an average out-of-plane localization error of (0.7 ± 0.6) mm for the training dataset and of (0.9 ± 0.8) mm for the evaluation dataset, which is on par with other published methods and clinically insignificant. The angular orientation error was (3.9 ± 2.3)° for the training dataset and (6.4 ± 4.0)° for the evaluation dataset. For the evaluation dataset, 84.6% of evaluation image volumes had a better than 10° angular error, which is similar to expert-level accuracy. When measured in the inferred annular plane, the relative measurement error was (4.73 ± 5.32)% for the annular area and (2.46 ± 2.94)% for the annular perimeter., Conclusions: The proposed algorithm is the first application of CNN to aortic valve planimetry and achieves an accuracy on par with proposed automated methods for localization and approaches an expert-level accuracy for orientation. The method relies on no heuristic specific to the aortic valve and may be generalizable to other anatomical features.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of chimney stenting, a bailout technique to treat coronary artery occlusion (CAO)., Background: CAO during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a rare but often fatal complication., Methods: In the international Chimney Registry, patient and procedural characteristics and data on outcomes are retrospectively collected from patients who underwent chimney stenting during TAVR., Results: To date, 16 centers have contributed 60 cases among 12,800 TAVR procedures (0.5%). Chimney stenting was performed for 2 reasons: 1) due to the development of an established CAO (n = 25 [41.6%]); or 2) due to an impending CAO (n = 35 [58.3%]). The majority of cases (92.9%) had 1 or more classical risk factors for CAO. Upfront coronary protection was performed in 44 patients (73.3%). Procedural and in-hospital mortality occurred in 1 and 2 patients, respectively. Myocardial infarction (52.0% vs. 0.0%; p < 0.01), cardiogenic shock (52.0% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.01), and resuscitation (44.0% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.01) all occurred more frequently in patients with established CAO compared with those with impending CAO. The absence of upfront coronary protection was the sole independent risk factor for the combined endpoint of death, cardiogenic shock, or myocardial infarction. During a median follow-up time of 612 days (interquartile range: 405 to 842 days), 2 cases of stent failure were reported (1 in-stent restenosis, 1 possible late stent thrombosis) after 157 and 374 days., Conclusions: Chimney stenting appears to be an acceptable bailout technique for CAO, with higher event rates among those with established CAO and among those without upfront coronary protection., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study reports the 1-year clinical outcomes of the VitaFlow™ transcatheter aortic valve system in the treatment of severe aortic stenosis., Background: The VitaFlow™ system (MicroPort®, Shanghai, China) was developed as a novel transcatheter aortic valve replacement system to mitigate or circumvent some of the challenges associated with heavily calcified valves and bicuspid valves., Methods: From September 2014 to November 2017, a prospective, multicenter, single arm study was conducted in 11 centers in China. The primary end point was all cause mortality at 12 months., Results: One hundred and ten symptomatic aortic stenosis patients (60 men, 50 women; mean age 77.73 ± 4.78 years) at prohibitive or high risk for surgery were enrolled. Mean society of thoracic surgeons score was 8.84 ± 5.58%. All-cause mortality was 2.7% at 1-year. Major stroke, major vascular complication, coronary artery obstruction, new pacemaker implantation occurred in 2.7, 2.7, 1.8, and 19.1% at 1-year follow-up, respectively. No patients had moderate or severe paravalvular leak at 1-year. At 1 year follow-up, 97% of patients had New York heart association ≤II. Patients with bicuspid valves had similar outcomes as those patients with tricuspid aortic valve stenosis., Conclusions: The 12-month clinical results support the safety and efficacy of VitaFlow™ in the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis, including patients with bicuspid aortic valve., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or replacement has rapidly changed the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. It is now the standard of care for patients believed to be inoperable or at high surgical risk, and a reasonable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for those at intermediate surgical risk. Recent clinical trial data have shown the benefits of this technology in patients at low surgical risk as well. This update of the 2012 Canadian Cardiovascular Society TAVI position statement incorporates clinical evidence to provide a practical framework for patient selection that does not rely on surgical risk scores but rather on individual patient evaluation of risk and benefit from either TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement. In addition, this statement features new wait time categories and treatment time goals for patients accepted for TAVI. Institutional requirements and recommendations for operator training and maintenance of competency have also been revised to reflect current standards. Procedural considerations such as decision-making for concomitant coronary intervention, antiplatelet therapy after intervention, and follow-up guidelines are also discussed. Finally, we suggest that all patients with aortic stenosis might benefit from evaluation by the heart team to determine the optimal individualized treatment decision., (Copyright © 2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has a negative impact on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Data on outcomes in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) undergoing TAVR are scarce. We compared the outcomes in RTRs undergoing TAVR with matched patients who have native kidneys and similar kidney function., Methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from 16 TAVR centres (13,941 patients). The study cohort included 216 patients (72 RTRs and 144 matched controls)., Results: The mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 39.2 ± 23.6 vs 44.5 ± 23.6 mL/min for RTRs and control patients (P = 0.149), with a similar CKD stage distribution. After TAVR, the eGFR declined among RTRs but remained stable for up to 1 year in controls (P = 0.021). Long-term hemodialysis was required in 19 (26.4%) RTRs and 20 (13.8%) controls (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.09 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-3.86; P = 0.039) and was most often initiated during the periprocedural period (14 RTRs vs 16 controls; P = 0.039). After a median follow-up of 2.3 years, risk of death (29.2% vs 31.9%) and death/hemodialysis (40.3% vs 36.8%) was similar between the groups. The contrast volume/eGFR ratio was the strongest predictor of hemodialysis initiation (odds ratio [OR] = 1.64; 95% CI, 1.36-1.97 per 1 unit increase; P < 0.001), with a greater effect among RTRs than controls (P for interaction = 0.022)., Conclusion: s: TAVR appears safe in RTRs with mortality rates similar to matched patients with native kidneys. However, RTRs carry an increased risk of progressive renal impairment and need for hemodialysis initiation after TAVR. Our data highlight the importance of minimizing contrast load during TAVR, particularly in RTRs., (Copyright © 2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Quantitative aortography using videodensitometry is a valuable tool for quantifying paravalvular regurgitation after TAVI, especially in the minimalist approach - without general anaesthesia. However, retrospective assessment of aortograms showed moderate feasibility of assessment. We sought to determine the prospective feasibility of quantitative aortography after a protocol of acquisition., Methods and Results: This was a multicentre registry in Japan, Canada, the Netherlands and Germany including consecutive patients with Heart Team indication to undergo TAVI over a median period of 12 months. Operators performed final aortograms according to a pre-planned projection (either by CT or visually - Teng's rule). An independent core laboratory (Cardialysis) analysed all images for feasibility and for regurgitation assessment. From the four centres included in the present analysis, a total of 354 patients underwent TAVI following the acquisition protocol and all the aortograms were analysed by the core lab. The analyses were feasible in 95.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.2% to 97.5%) of the cases. This rate of analysable assessment was significantly higher than the feasibility in previous validation studies, such as in the RESPOND population (95.5% vs. 57.5%, p<0.0001). No differences were observed among different planning strategies (CT 96.5% vs. Teng's rule 93%, p=0.159; or Circle 98.5% vs. 3mensio 95.8% vs. Teng's rule 93%, p=0.247)., Conclusions: ASSESS-REGURGE showed a high feasibility of assessment of regurgitation with quantitative aortography with protocoled acquisition. This may be of great importance for quantifying regurgitation in TAVI procedures (optimisation, guidance of post-dilatation), and in future clinical trials, in order to address sealing features of novel devices for TAVI objectively. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03644784.

Background: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased risk for death from surgery; less is known about TAVR in low-risk patients., Methods: We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in which TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients who had severe aortic stenosis and were at low surgical risk. When 850 patients had reached 12-month follow-up, we analyzed data regarding the primary end point, a composite of death or disabling stroke at 24 months, using Bayesian methods., Results: Of the 1468 patients who underwent randomization, an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure was performed in 1403. The patients' mean age was 74 years. The 24-month estimated incidence of the primary end point was 5.3% in the TAVR group and 6.7% in the surgery group (difference, -1.4 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval for difference, -4.9 to 2.1; posterior probability of noninferiority >0.999). At 30 days, patients who had undergone TAVR, as compared with surgery, had a lower incidence of disabling stroke (0.5% vs. 1.7%), bleeding complications (2.4% vs. 7.5%), acute kidney injury (0.9% vs. 2.8%), and atrial fibrillation (7.7% vs. 35.4%) and a higher incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (3.5% vs. 0.5%) and pacemaker implantation (17.4% vs. 6.1%). At 12 months, patients in the TAVR group had lower aortic-valve gradients than those in the surgery group (8.6 mm Hg vs. 11.2 mm Hg) and larger effective orifice areas (2.3 cm 2 vs. 2.0 cm 2 )., Conclusions: In patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis was noninferior to surgery with respect to the composite end point of death or disabling stroke at 24 months. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02701283.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objectives: The authors sought to assess the distribution and prognostic significance of habitual physical activity (HPA) in older adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: Low HPA is associated with mortality and disability in community-dwelling older adults. In the setting of TAVR, it is unclear whether low HPA is a risk factor for downstream morbidity or a byproduct of severe aortic stenosis that improves following its correction., Methods: Older adults undergoing TAVR in the prospective multicentre FRAILTY-AVR (Frailty in Aortic Valve Replacement) study were interviewed to quantify their HPA in kilocalories/week using a validated questionnaire at baseline and follow-up. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months., Results: The cohort consisted of 755 patients with a median age of 84.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 80.0 to 87.0 years). At baseline, median HPA was 1,116 kcal/week (IQR: 227 to 2,715 kcal/week) with 73% of patients performing <150 min/week of moderate or vigorous HPA. Sedentary patients were more likely to be older, female, frail, cognitively impaired, depressed, and have multimorbidity, although they had similar left ventricular function and aortic stenosis severity. In the logistic regression model adjusting for these covariates, HPA was found to be associated with mortality at 12 months (odds ratio: 0.84/100 kcal; 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 0.98). HPA was associated with longer length of stay, discharge to health care facilities, and disability. At 12 months, median HPA among survivors was 933 kcal/week (IQR: 0 to 2,334 kcal/week) with pre-existing frailty being independently predictive of worsening HPA following TAVR., Conclusions: Sedentary patients have a higher risk of mortality and functional decline following TAVR., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background Women account for a large proportion of patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement, yet there remain conflicting reports about the effect of sex on outcomes. Moreover, the sex-specific prevalence and prognostic impact of frailty has not been systematically studied in the context of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods and Results A preplanned analysis of the FRAILTY-AVR study (Frailty Aortic Valve Replacement) was performed to analyze the determinants of outcomes in older women and men undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. FRAILTY-AVR was a multinational, prospective, observational cohort assembled at 14 institutions in North America and Europe from 2012 to 2017. Multivariable logistic regression models were stratified by sex and adjusted for covariates. Interaction between sex and each of these covariates was assessed. The primary outcome was 12-month mortality, and the secondary outcome was 1-month composite mortality or major morbidity. The cohort consisted of 340 women and 419 men. Women were older and had higher predicted risk of mortality. Women were more likely to have physical frailty traits, but not cognitive or psychosocial frailty traits, and global indices of frailty were similarly associated with adverse events regardless of sex. Women were more likely to require discharge to a rehabilitation facility, particularly those with physical frailty at baseline, although their functional status was similar to men at 12 months. The risk of 1-month mortality or major morbidity was greater in women, particularly those treated with larger prostheses. The risk of 12-month mortality was not greater in women, with the exception of those with pulmonary hypertension, in whom, there was a significant interaction for increased mortality. Conclusions The present study highlights sex-specific differences in older adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement and draws attention to the impact of physical frailty in women and their potential risk associated with oversized prostheses and pulmonary hypertension.

Background: Older adults undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) are at risk for malnutrition. The association between preprocedural nutritional status and midterm mortality has yet to be determined., Methods: The FRAILTY-AVR (Frailty in Aortic Valve Replacement) prospective multicenter cohort study was conducted between 2012 and 2017 in 14 centers in 3 countries. Patients ≥70 years of age who underwent transcatheter or surgical AVR were eligible. The Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form was assessed by trained observers preprocedure, with scores ≤7 of 14 considered malnourished and 8 to 11 of 14 considered at risk for malnutrition. The Short Performance Physical Battery was simultaneously assessed to measure physical frailty, with scores ≤5 of 12 considered severely frail and 6 to 8 of 12 considered mildly frail. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was 30-day composite mortality or major morbidity. Multivariable regression models were used to adjust for potential confounders., Results: There were 1158 patients (727 transcatheter AVR and 431 surgical AVR), with 41.5% females, a mean age of 81.3 years, a mean body mass index of 27.5 kg/m 2 , and a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Predicted Risk of Mortality of 5.1%. Overall, 8.7% of patients were classified as malnourished and 32.8% were at risk for malnutrition. Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form scores were modestly correlated with Short Performance Physical Battery scores (Spearman R=0.31, P<0.001). There were 126 deaths in the transcatheter AVR group (19.1 per 100 patient-years) and 30 deaths in the surgical AVR group (7.5 per 100 patient-years). Malnourished patients had a nearly 3-fold higher crude risk of 1-year mortality compared with those with normal nutritional status (28% versus 10%, P<0.001). After adjustment for frailty, Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Predicted Risk of Mortality, and procedure type, preprocedural nutritional status was a significant predictor of 1-year mortality (odds ratio, 1.08 per Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form point; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16) and of the 30-day composite safety end point (odds ratio, 1.06 per Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form point; 95% CI, 1.001-1.12)., Conclusions: Preprocedural nutritional status is associated with mortality in older adults undergoing AVR. Clinical trials are needed to determine whether pre- and postprocedural nutritional interventions can improve clinical outcomes in these vulnerable patients.

Objectives: The authors sought to determine whether frail older adults undergoing nonfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures had a higher risk of 30-day and 12-month mortality., Background: Frailty can help predict outcomes and guide therapy in older adults being considered for TAVR. Nonfemoral TAVR procedures are more invasive and impart a greater risk of adverse events, which may be less well tolerated in frail patients, compared with transfemoral TAVR procedures., Methods: This study was a post hoc analysis of the FRAILTY-AVR (Frailty Assessment Before Cardiac Surgery & Transcatheter Interventions) prospective multicenter cohort that consisted of older adults undergoing TAVR from 2012 to 2017. Frailty was assessed using the Essential Frailty Toolset (EFT). Endpoints of interest were 30-day and 12-month all-cause mortality. Interaction tables and multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate statistical interaction on the additive and multiplicative scales., Results: The cohort consisted of 723 patients with a mean age of 84 ± 6 years, of which 556 (77%) had femoral access and 167 (23%) had nonfemoral access. In frail patients with EFT scores ≥3 (35%), nonfemoral access was associated with increased 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 3.91; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.48 to 10.31); whereas in nonfrail patients with EFT scores <3 (65%), nonfemoral access had no effect (OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.34 to 4.94). There was statistical evidence of interaction between frailty and access site on 30-day mortality on the additive scale (relative excess risk due to interaction = 5.95). Nonfemoral access was associated with increased 1-year mortality in frail patients (OR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.00 to 3.93) but not in nonfrail patients (OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 0.90 to 3.74), although there was no statistical evidence of interaction., Conclusions: Frail patients undergoing TAVR via a more invasive nonfemoral access face a substantially higher risk of 30-day mortality, whereas nonfrail older adults tolerate the procedure with a low short-term risk irrespective of access route., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In the 16 years since the first pioneering procedure, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has come of age and become a routine strategy for aortic valve replacement, increasingly performed under conscious sedation via transfemoral access. Simplification of the procedure, accumulation of clinical experience, and improvements in valve design and delivery systems have led to a dramatic reduction in complication rates. These advances have allowed transition to lower risk populations, and outcome data from the PARTNER 2A and SURTAVI trials have established a clear evidence base for use in intermediate risk patients. Ongoing studies with an expanding portfolio of devices seem destined to expand indications for TAVI towards lower risk, younger and asymptomatic populations. In this article, we outline recent advances, new devices and current guidelines informing the use of TAVI, and describe remaining uncertainties that need to be addressed.